I totally agree Russo. Newcomers to the fold who may not be aware of protocol and the ever watching eyes of the tabloid press may slip up and make a gaffe or two. However ladies who were born into royalty and make sure everyone knows about it, should know better and be a bit more careful.
That colonies comment had New York buzzing for a few days.

I read a piece in the express about Princess Michael and I was amazed to discover that although she did have a distant aristocratic relative, she was brought up in Australia and the accent is put on. It said her mum was a hairdresser.

Her mother wasn't a hairdresser, that is an another oft-repeated lie by the media. It supposedly came about because her mother put a dermatologist friend of hers in touch with someone she knew in Sydney who owned a chain of beauty salons through which he then sold face creams he produced. The facts then morphed, once again, into something else completley different.

I'm sorry but every bio I can find states that her mum was either a hairdresser or managed a beauty salon. Even the BBC states this and I can't see them leaving the wrong information up. I can't find anything that gives the same story as you.

I can't see why anyone would have a problem with it, being a hairdresser is a worthwhile job. And it is true that she lived in the suburbs in Australia for 16 years. She has done well to pull herself up by her bootstrings.

The correction regarding her mother being a hairdresser is in the biography "Princess Michael of Kent" by Peter Lane. The dermatologist in question was Dr. N.G. Payot. The book reads,

"When the Countess settled in Austrailia, she noticed how dry were the skins of Australian ladies. She decided to invest in the franchise of Dr. Payot's products for Australia....when I discussed this hairdresser story with members of the Countesse's family they were both annoyed and amused....as one of them told me, "The Countess has never learnt to put a curler in her own hair let alone anyone else's". "I hope" ,said another, "that you finally put an end to this silly story".

Thank you for this interesting information, Angela. Surely hairdresser is a worthwhile job, but I always had my difficulties imagine the Countess being something like that. She married a polish noble man in second marriage, right? As far as I know Marie-Christine has a half brother from the mother's side. Does she have half-siblings through her father as well?

I read a piece in the express about Princess Michael and I was amazed to discover that although she did have a distant aristocratic relative, she was brought up in Australia and the accent is put on. It said her mum was a hairdresser.

Amazing.

Vicky,she doesn't have a "distant aristocratic relative",she was born aristocratic from top to toe(via her father and her mother)...she was born a Baroness whose mother was Countess and grandmother a Princess...

The fact is that she is the most blue blooded person to marry British RF in last 50 years stands ...someone might like it and someone may not but it's a pure fact!

She is also a relative of every current European monarch including Queen Elizabeth II with whom she shares the same ancestry...They have both descended from Prince Ferdinand August von Lobkowicz who died in 18th century...

I have seen the lineage on Princess Michaels own website Marc23 but I expect I am like a lot of people in Britain, and never considered Austrian aristocrats as significant. I expect this will wind everyone up but so far most of what I have posted seems to have had that effect, I feel as if most of you are jumping down my throat but if your not allowed to ask for information or discuss things am I on the wrong thread or is it the same on every thread or are the regulars the only ones allowed to ask things?

As Marc23 pointed out, Austrian aristocrats were equal to to every Royal Family in Europe and because the European Royal Families are more or less related to each other and aristocrats, such as the Austrian aristocrats, often share the same ancestors with reigning houses, such as the British, it indeed has some significance if you're interested in royalty and history IMHO.

Also brother of Marie-Christine Baron Friedrich von Reibnitz is married to a noble...His wife Helen is daughter of Sir Bruce and Lady Roma Rodda-Williams...

Sir Bruce Rodda Williams is not a noble, he is a Knight of the British Empire and his wife is not Lady Roma, she is Lady Rodda-Williams because of her marriage, it is a courtesy title and does not signify nobility. I believe that although we have the custom to call wives of Knights "Lady" the correct term is Dame, but someone else will know more about that I am sure.
By the way Vicky J, if we don┤t ask questions we can never learn.
Sarah Ferguson is of royal descent on both sides of her family and not just one side as Christine of Kent is, l so I believe it is a bit of an exaggeration to say she is the most blue blooded person to marry into the royal family for umpteen years..

This is not properly correct; every Royal Family has an higher rank to every noble family, even in Austria. Maybe you and Marc were referring to the marriages between members of the former ruling families in the Holy Roman Empire, recognized as noble houses in the Austrian Empire, and members of a Royal House: those marriages are considered equal, but the rank of the mediatized families remains lower then the rank of a Royal House.

Moreover, not all the Austrian noble families are mediatized: if all the austrian noble families were equal to every european Royal Family, the wedding in 1900 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Este to Countess Sophie Chotek von Chotkow und Wognin (later Duchess of Hohenberg) would have been equal instead of morganatic.

You're welcome, Dierna!
Princess Michael surely comes from very illustrious families, mostly on her maternal side, but not from mediatized families; only her maternal grandmother, Countess Hedwig Szapary, born Princess zu Windisch-Graetz, came from a mediatized family.

Vicky J,as you see I have even less posts than you,so I don't consider myself regular here

Well,those Austrian aristocrats you and "a lot of people in Britain" don't consider significant were EQUAL by birth to every Royal Family,unlike "significant aristocrats" in Britain who were not..

Marc23

I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say. You and others on here might know about the importance of aristocratic families from other countries but most people in the UK don't even know there are other aristocratic or even royal families. It is not something that you learn in school. Even Dukes and their wives are not really known about here and not seen as important, which I don't think they are really, especially now most of them have been kicked out of the house of lords.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAfan

You're welcome, Dierna!
Princess Michael surely comes from very illustrious families, mostly on her maternal side, but not from mediatized families; only her maternal grandmother, Countess Hedwig Szapary, born Princess zu Windisch-Graetz, came from a mediatized family.

Mediatized = formerly reigning, now royal but not reigning. Usually due to a consolidation of a country that has many reigning principalities or duchies which were then rolled up into one. Germany is a terrific example of that.

__________________"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"

You're welcome, Dierna!
Princess Michael surely comes from very illustrious families, mostly on her maternal side, but not from mediatized families; only her maternal grandmother, Countess Hedwig Szapary, born Princess zu Windisch-Graetz, came from a mediatized family.

We can say that Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz was an appropriate match for Prince Michael, can't we? Of course, she was not the best choice in terms of her religion. That is an entirely different point.

__________________

__________________"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"